114 replies to this topic

[Magicdirt]

`

Edited by Magicdirt, 08 May 2011 - 05:53 PM.

[Torsten]

http://www.abc.net.a.../12/3162450.htm

they stopped the meltdown by pumping water into the reactor with a fire truck that had to be brought in from off site! amazing how unprepared they really are.

Just so I am not misunderstood, I am not against nurclear power as long as it meets the following conditions:

1) no chance of meltdown [bury it in a mountain if you have to]
2) no subsidies. it needs to pay its own way.
3) safe disposal or processing of waste. and I don't mean burying stuff that is still dangeorus in 10,000 years so that our future generations have to deal with it.

if it can't be done sustainably and safe then it shouldn't be done.

[CβL]

Last year at uni I did a massive report on wind turbine power generation. And basically, it's been found that wind power has actually become cheaper than coal in certain sites. I also concluded that the scope for increased wind turbine efficiency was pretty big. Meaning with more development - wind power can smash coal power, and probably a lot of the other ones too. And just after reading about this possible meltdown in Japan. I can see it's just not worth having nuclear power - that entire part of the country could become massively irradiated, and we may have much worse to come. If a corresponding wind farm was demolished, the one guy walking his dog amongst them would've probably not made it, and next month most of the turbines would have been re-installed (had they even collapsed, which, they generally don't). To clarify, when I say nuclear power - I mean fission.

Maybe one day when we can develop Tokamaks that can be put into the most deserted areas of the world, and then power distributed from them and supplemented with solar and wind. Maybe that's the solution. But the solution is NOT to invest in fission simply because the current trade price of uranium is low. The other side of the solution is to lower our power consumption. Have you ever seen Las Vegas at night? It's disgusting - there's so much light pollution that the sky is brown throughout the night. Have you ever seen your OWN city at night? It's not much freaking better. And that's just light fixtures.
Vehicle infrastructure in areas where large proportions of the populace don't do more than drive around town (aren't these statistics what censuses are for?) needs to be created for electric vehicles. All there needs to be is a way for folk to charge their vehicle at their home, and be able to find a charging station anywhere in town. And lastly, some portable chargers for n00bs who run their batteries out. The cost of the vehicles is the only remaining hurdle.

The technology for this does not exist in a viable state. But using that as an excuse for not developing the technology... that is pathetic. There are capacitors in development which can forseeably solve the acceleration issue, and there are carbon nanotube cells which can probably solve the energy density (and cost, as many countries have begun hoarding the traditional metals used for rechargeables) problem. We can probably even develop an induction recharging system so that when you're at the lights - you're charging your car! At the moment, I'm a pretty big hipocrite - I run my big PC, a big monitor, gasoline car, pay for supermarket goods (that come freighted in on huge diesel trucks), bought consumer crap, do minimal re-using, and countless other little violations. But slowly and solidly, I'm changing. Not replacing this PC. Getting the smallest monitor I can once this once carks. Starting to grow my own food. Starting to grow my own basic medicine. Buying non-throwaway items.
It's not about doing a 180º; it's about doing a 1º, then another 1º, and then another 1º...

Edited by bluntmuffin, 12 March 2011 - 08:06 PM.

[Sheather]

Here's to the development of fusion power soon! Much better than this silly fission gig.

I hear that there have now been reactors built that produce more power than they consume - we're getting somewhere with that. I didn't end up reading the whole thread because it degenerated into crap pretty quick.

[planthelper]

maybe only few know already, but anna bligh want's to build a nucelar powersation in gladstone, which i think is a very bad idea.

[random]

As if gladstone isn't polluted enough already. *sigh*

[Mycot]

i bet the japanese are glad they have nuclear power right about now.

with all of this so called man induced climate change and global warming, bringing more frequent and powerful natural disasters world wide. blah blah blah. you get the drift. wouldn't it be a fantastic idea if the whole world went nuclear. let's put the entire planet in the exact same position the japanese find themselves in. maybe we could turn earth into a toxic wasteland.

let's do it for the environment and don't forget the children.

Agreed. I didn't like that there were only three options on the second question all polluting. There are many sources of clean power, we just have to harness them.
Something that an intelligent species should be able to do.

[Sheather]

I think that was the point of the second question. Pick the lesser of the evils.

[Magicdirt]

Now we are seeing how dangerous this technology can be.
People have said it throughout the history of the nuclear energy industry and repetitively had their concerns swept under the carpet by industry officials, governments, scientists and media "experts".
They are playing Russian roulette with the health of the planet in order to make some quick easy bucks.
I've worked in conventional power stations and I've seen more incompetent half arsed work done by drugged out morons than anyone would believe, why would a nuclear plant be any different ? I've even worked under illiterate supervisors on several occasions.

Now we have a situation where we (citizens of the world) have been lied to many times as to the safety of nuclear power plants. Corruption and lies are now emerging to be commonplace in regards to the safety of nuclear power plants.

The Russian government lied about the amount of fallout from the Chernobyl incident (at first they completely denied it even happened)
TEPCO manipulated safety inspections and covered up the details in Japan.
The American government spun a string of lies in the aftermath of the 3 mile reactor incident. The lies were almost the same as the ones being told now about the Fukashima reactors ie venting to relieve pressure and minimal radiation leakage etc.

We also have a situation where no-one can be trusted as to the safety of reactors - corporations, governments or so called independent bodies have been shown to either sit on the fence or tell outright lies where public safety is concerned. Statistics are manipulated and evidence is not documented after such events.

Saying that those issues are a thing of the past are like saying police corruption is a thing of the past - wake up and smell (or taste) the strontium - 90
And take your potassium iodide.
Don't even start me on D.U. or dust clouds.
Fuck with another planet leave mine alone.

[random]

*claps*

Too true magicdirt.

And way too sad.

[Frank Costanza's Lawyer]

I think current nuclear technology is relatively idiotic. As far as I know (which is not incredibly far) it hasn't been progressed much since the 70's. The potential of nuclear power is however great, Breeder reactors and other Fast reactors <google away> not only utilize more energy from the radioactive material, the US has fuel for 1000 years currently buried as "nuclear waste" (claimed on ABC's Big Ideas recently). Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that recycling? Because more energy is captured, there is less waste, supposedly each citizen would generate about a coke can's worth over their lifetime which would return to background radiation levels in about 300 years.

Current problems with these reactors are the need for refined radioactive fuels, abundant amount of weapons grade shit at different stages of the process (however I think the guys with the guns now suffer from some terrible mental handicaps), difficulty in temperature regulation (big bada boom) and probably some other shit I forgot.

So am I for it...Yes
Does it need to be relatively safe compared to todays technology....Of course
Should we throw all our eggs in this basket....Hell NO

It is finally becoming increasingly obvious to many people that limiting ourselves to singular ideas is a bottleneck to things like our economy, environment, development (scientific, social and personal) and happiness.
Nuclear should only be used to fill in the gaps of geothermal, wind, tidal, etc solutions.
I am not impressed by solar, particularly solar farming, this world is in a food crisis peoples, Bill Mollison has claimed that a tree is still the most efficient method of harvesting solar energy, and when you considered the expertise and manpower that goes into the manufacture of these panels and the dismal results you get from extravagant costs, not to mention fragility, poor serviceabilty etc. I find it difficult to believe there is any degree of 'sustainability' from panels, probably need to wait till Tesla's reincarnation first.
Ranto completo...Angry replies welcome and enjoyed (particlary when theys r bout gramma).

Anyone remember Beyond 2000?

[synchromesh]

Nuclear should only be used to fill in the gaps of geothermal, wind, tidal, etc solutions.

It's probably all that could be afforded anyway.

[poisonshroom]

Wasnt Fukushima going to be decommissioned in a few months anyway? As far as Im aware newer nuclear power plants are much safer than the one in fukushima. Also, Japan isnt the best place to build something like that - its very prone to earthquakes and tsunamis (tsunami being a japanese word). Nuclear power isnt necessarily safe, but neither is coal power (accidents, pollution, dust etc), and in terms of sustainability nuclear power is better than coal - uranium mines are much smaller and less destructive than coal mines, once a plant is built its cheaper to run, and produces less greenhouse emissions (although CO2 has recently been detected in nuclear plant emissions, its still obviously lower than burning coal, and of course water vapor is still produced - water being a greenhouse gas).

Personally Im for nuclear power, but i think there are (potentially) better and safer ways to produce energy (especially for Australia)


EDIT: geothermal looks promising, but not as sustainable as people think

Edited by poisonshroom, 27 March 2011 - 01:17 PM.

[Mycot]

Saying that those issues are a thing of the past are like saying police corruption is a thing of the past - wake up and smell (or taste) the strontium - 90
And take your potassium iodide.
Don't even start me on D.U. or dust clouds.
Fuck with another planet leave mine alone.

Compleately agree. All these pro-nuclear are nowhere to be found when the shit hits the fan, its all just blah blah blah.
Neither do they want to live in the vicinity of a reactor, work at a plant or be responsible for the waste, they just want the benefits and non of the cost. Everyone else can pay for that.

Edited by Mycot, 28 March 2011 - 12:12 PM.

[Μορφέας]

THORIUM REACTORS, cheaper more efficient, its waste is uranium, so offers two generations of power

mycot and magicdirt - dont you think its completley hipocritical to say dont fuck with my planet when the current sources of energy are the reason we're heading to a biblical apocolypitic 'abomination of desolation' on this planet. When it comes to the crunch of benefits vs cons, nuclear power trumps the lot. although ideally we should cut the worlds population in half then half again and once more, and get rid of the need for power and all revert to being small community gardeners haha

will you still be against nuclear power when we have fusion technology?

Edited by Μορφέας, 28 March 2011 - 02:44 PM.

[Mycot]

No, I don't think there is anything hypocritical about Magicdirt's or my post.
Nuclear is a con being sold by those who stand to profit at others expense and that of the environment.
As I implied in an earlier post we already have the technical knowhow to source clean energy from the vast amounts of energy that are operative on this planet every day. What is missing is political will.

There is even a community in Switzerland that is extremely clean running on "free energy"
Methernitha A Community That Runs on Free Energy and Spiritual Values

[ballzac]

Mycot, I totally understand the desire to take those claims on faith but, as Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Claims about 'free' energy are common, but there is never any evidence presented. The accepted understanding by the scientific community is, however, strongly supported by evidence. It is true that things that have been considered as fact by the scientific community are often later found to be incorrect, but when this happens, it is when someone who understands the science finds a better way of making the theory agree with experiments. Examples include Einsteinian relativity and quantum theory.

Not only are claims of free energy invariably lacking in evidence, but they also conveniently always have a 'secret' principle, thus avoiding providing any thorough explanation. For some reason though, there is always a pseudo scientific explanation 'supporting' the concept. To anyone who understands the physical principles involved, it is patently obvious that these 'explanations' do not actually explain anything. I can understand that to someone who is not familiar with physical principles, these explanations appear no less meaningful than the explanations given by physicists for certain phenomena, but to anyone who is familiar with them, this stuff sounds like gibberish. I think it is fair enough to expect a person to be able to understand undergraduate level physics if they wish to convince the scientific community that a particular process that is based on physical principles is possible. Those claiming to have generated 'free energy' never display this basic level of understanding of undergraduate level physics.

My point is that if you are going to propose an alternative to nuclear energy, it is not helpful if it is something unsupported by evidence, and the proponents of which do not understand the physics involved.

[Magicdirt]

THORIUM REACTORS, cheaper more efficient, its waste is uranium, so offers two generations of power

mycot and magicdirt - dont you think its completley hipocritical to say dont fuck with my planet when the current sources of energy are the reason we're heading to a biblical apocolypitic 'abomination of desolation' on this planet. When it comes to the crunch of benefits vs cons, nuclear power trumps the lot. although ideally we should cut the worlds population in half then half again and once more, and get rid of the need for power and all revert to being small community gardeners haha

will you still be against nuclear power when we have fusion technology?

I was intending to break that down and argue on a point by point basis.
But in reality I must concede - I am a hypocrite, I use power and the planet pays the cost.

When fusion becomes commercially viable I'd prefer to see fusion rectors or hybrid reactors over what we have now.

[Mycot]

Balzac, thankyou for your thoughtful reply.
I had not originally intended to venture into the topic of "free energy" as I feel that the topic has not been properly resolved, with arguements for and against.
Why I did so was because I was led to believe from the article that a whole community was running on the stuff and as such the matter could be easily verified.
Upon further investigation it appears that the community does not run on "free energy" but owns a number of machines making for a far weaker case.
So I apologise for venturing onto the topic of "free energy" this being still very much in the realm of controversy.

More pragmatic and scientific at this stage and as implied in the earlier section of my post we should be utilizing solar, wind, geothermal, wave, hydroelectric and other sources of clean energy for the sake of ourselves and all of life. The ideal is to live in harmony with nature, to do otherwise is catastropic.

[cacti jihadist]

an interesting article on the future of energy sources in regards to fusion - mining the moon. slightly off topic but also related.

Obviously this is still some time away but an interesting read !

http://globalresearc...xt=va&aid=25542

[pete34]

google: rossi cold fusion

our bodies are doing cold fusion right now
cold fusion was debunked by people who had a lot to loose

[ballzac]

[Buttsack]

Risk vs Benefit.........The risks far outway the benefit. I don't see why we would invest in another fossil fuel when there are renewable alternatives.

Nuclear power plants might be safe, if run properly, but that isn't possible if profits are put before people. Power companies and mines abide by their own rules and their number one goal is to make as much profit as possible, with as little maitenance as possible. Once they're built they will be very hard to shut down.

We have the most polluting power station in the industrailized world and we cannot shut it down.
Hungry Beast - Hazelwood Power Station


PDF - 100 Good Reasons Against Nuclear Power

Al Jazeera - People & Power - Danger Zone: Ageing Nuclear Reactors


75% US Nuclear Plants Leaking Toxic Tritium Radiation Into Drinking Water Supply



Anyone who says mines don't leave a large footprint on the environment must not have worked in one. I know a lot of people who have worked both open cut and underground. None of them think it's clean and they all agree the environment is worse off since the mine was opened. It doesn't worry them though because if they don't do it someone else will. Why would you want $50,000 per year when you can earn $120,000 for 6 months of working. A lot of mines are kept open and run at a loss because if they close they will have to honor their environment lease and repair the land they damaged.

Here's an example of an Australian mining company not giving a fuck.

Abandoned mine threatens environmental disaster

Toxic metal contamination found in Grose Valley


Support renewable energy and give the power back to the people.

Edited by Buttsack, 04 September 2012 - 02:26 PM.

[Bigred]

i understand it as this we will be leaving earth one day and doing lots of space travel nuclear energy would be ideal when setting up colonies on Uranus or mars
so we first must use energy that is in abundance before we waste our precious reserves i love nuclear energy as long as it is safe they should have bigger reactors in Australia but it should not be Australia's main source as we have so much geo,solar,wind,tide available to us and it has alot to do with the reactor as well thorium is a great option one i can see a future for